Help desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 26

Title Blacklist

When I am working Articles for Creation, I commonly try to move a page from a sandbox into draft space, the preferred place for AFC submissions. Sometimes I get an error message stating that the move cannot be done because the title is on the Title Blacklist. I have now come to the conclusion that this error message is basically wrong. My initial assumption after the first two or so times that this happened was that the title might have been salted or in some similar way blacklisted. In those cases, I was told by admins that the title was not salted. Okay. I have since seen that the "title blacklist" displays cod e that contains regular expressions. That, in itself, is to my mind reason enough why referring to it as a "blacklist" is wrong, not just confusing, which it is, but wrong. (A salted title really is blacklisted.) What I have since observed is that every time that I have encountered this error, the real problem is that the title, as given by the author either at the beginning or at the end of the article, was in block UPPER CASE. There appears to be a rule that is being enforced that prevents creation (including by move) of a title that contains too many upper case letters. If so, the preferred error handling would be to say that the title is not permitted because it is in upper case only. (I agree that titles in all upper case are obnoxious and can reasonably be prevented. But it is confusing and annoying to call it a blacklist.) A satisfactory error handling would be simply to say that the title is not permitted because it violates the title rules, and to then provide the ability to link to a page listing the title rules in ordinary English (not just in regexps). It isn't a title blacklist. It is a set of rules against having titles violate certain rules. Is there a specific way that I should report this "error error", that is, an error message that is sufficiently wrong as to be an error itself? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are a few different error messages that will display when the title blacklist is triggered. All of them are listed at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. I am not aware of a way to create a new error message for a specific subset of the blacklist. You can change the message for everyone but for one specific regex? Not sure. As to the linking to a plain English explanation that could be doable by editing the error message and adding in a newly created Wikipedia:Why can't I move this article to this title (or something similar). The actual MediaWiki:Titleblacklist page will have to stay in regex form since that is how the software deals with it. --Majora (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed that the errmsg= parameter in individual blacklist lines lets you specify an arbitrary page in the MediaWiki: namespace to display, not just one from a limited list. But yes, MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist is the place to ask. —Cryptic 01:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

errmsg does let you specify an arbitary page in the MediaWiki namespace. If no errmsg is specified for the regex rule you break then one of the built-in pages listed at top of MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist is displayed. Which one depends on the type of action (page creation, move, account creation, upload) you were trying. The default Mediawiki messages like MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit/qqx display the regex line which is passed as $1 and includes any comment on the line. Our customized versions like MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit don't display the line. I don't know whether this has been discussed but a reason can be that showing the regex line can make it too easy for vandals and spammers to get around the blacklist. The regex rule against too many capital letters only applies to moves and not page creations. "blacklist" is the term used by MediaWiki itself so I think we should keep it. 01:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)PrimeHunter (talk)

Thank you. In other words, there is no reason for it, and we know that the message is wrong, but it is wrong at a higher level, and it is just the way it is, and since the users are volunteers, the professional developers are not expected to provide decent service. Thank you. That further indicates something that I had known, which is that the professional developers are not interested in the existing volunteers, possibly because they instead would prefer to create utopian software for utopian volunteers, or something. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with developers? They have created an ability for the editors at each wiki to make their own blacklists and their own custom messages. MediaWiki:Titleblacklist has no entries when a wiki starts. Pages in the MediaWiki namespace can be edited by local administrators. You can make a suggestion at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist to add a custom error message to the entry for too many capitals in page moves. I'm just hinting that I don't know how the response (from administrators, nothing to do with developers) will be. I'm an administrator but not active on that page. In the past there has been a lot of page move vandalism and there is very rarely a valid reason to move a page to all capitals. Not bothering to make a proper title when moving a draft with capitals may not be considered a valid reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your beef is only with the word "blacklist" then note that in computing this is often used for general rules like regular expressions. See for example the Google search blacklist regex. I don't know an alternative word that indicates it is general rules and not individual strings. The MediaWiki software is already used by thousands of wikis and it would cause great confusion if MediaWiki:Titleblacklist was renamed to something like MediaWiki:General rules against titles. But it would certainly be possible for the English Wikipedia to change the wording displayed to users in messages like MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit and MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-move. However, it may be hard to get support from other editors for banning the word blacklist. As far as I know, this is the common English term for what this feature does, also when it works with regexes. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know" box formatting issue on History Portal?

Not sure where the best place to post this is, but at Portal:History some wiki formatting text pops out, ie [[|100x100px|]]

   ... that the anti-religious campaign culminating in the Stalinist [[|100x100px|]]
show trial of the Kraków Curia (pictured) led to the 
imprisonment of 123 Polish Roman Catholic priests in just one year?
   ... that Confederate brigadier general Alfred E. Jackson was pardoned by
President Andrew Johnson because of his kindness toward Johnson's family
during the Civil War?
   ... that after HMS Porcupine was nearly split in two by a torpedo, the halves
were nicknamed HMS Pork and HMS Pine?

FYI to those who may be able to investigate/fix. Regards. – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. An image was deleted from Commons, so I placed another one into the template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Thanks. Maybe template types could code a fix for odd cases like this. Regards. – 72.234.220.38 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would require adding an ifexist to the template so it would check to see if anything was in the field, then display nothing if there was nothing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it was fixed. For future reference though, your first stop probably should have been Portal talk:History. The talk pages are usually the place to work out things such as this. And the History Portal has nearly 1000 watchers, so someone probably would have seen your comment fairly quickly. Dismas|^(talk) 12:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TOMAS MACCURTAIN

This man was part of the Irish Rising, Lord Mayor of Cork. I have an autograph book from READING JAIL December 1916 where my relative was interred at the same time as TOMAS MACCURTAIN Mr MACCURTAIN signed it and it is currently on exhibit in Glasgow Mitchell Library. Your entry reports that TOMAS MACCURTAIN was interred in FROGNOCH in WALES. Well unless he was there during 1916 and removed to READING JAIL later. I suspect your detail wrong. My Relative was Seamus Reader commander of the Scottish Brigade Irish Volunteers 1916-1921

Sincerely Eddi Reader (singer songwriter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.55.75 (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eddi, I saw you perform at the Wickham Folk Festival a few years ago, and very much hope to see you again some time! Moving on from the fan-squee to your query . . . :-)

In our Article that you linked, Reference 1 is a link to an Irish website that includes the following text:

"By 1911, he was involved in the running of Fianna Eireann, and became a Volunteer in 1914. He wanted to see a revival of the Irish language and national freedom and for his cause he served prison terms in 1916 and 1917 in Wakefield, Frongoch and Reading in England."

This suggests that our article (as far as it goes) and your book are not inconsistent, but our article could be improved for clarity, which I'll do shortly. Many thanks for pointing this out. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Eddi, I don't usually make comments about other people's English, but here I actually misunderstood you, because you used the word "interred" which to me means only "buried": I presume you means "interned". --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's got to be perfect? ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer?

Dear editors: Here's a draft article: Draft:Gregory Sullivan Isaacs which claims that the subject has been nominated for various awards. Outside of material published by related organizations, I can't find any corroborating evidence of the awards. Should the article be moved to mainspace based on these claims even though they are not supported? I have recently been reminded that notability is based on claims, not references. And is there a spot where Pulitzer Prize for drama nominations are listed that I could check?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on references; it is speed deletion criterion A7 which depends on a credible claim of significance. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of notability criteria: those based on claims (e.g. WP:NHOCKEY: hockey players are presumed notable if they have played matches in a major league), and those based on coverage (e.g. WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable independent sources, for any topic). No notability criteria is based on references per se, though obviously both claims and coverage are more easily substantiated by them. WP:A7, credible claim of significance, is a related concept but it isn't equivalent with notability: it "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". Indeed, "If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A presumption of notability, for the record, does not confer a permanent exemption from an article ever having to be sourced properly. People can and do make inflated or false claims of notability in order to make an article about them seem more includable than it really is, and we have seen outright hoaxes — so even an "automatic presumption of notability because they've accomplished a certain specific item on a checklist" claim still has to be verifiable in a reliable source. SNGs just clarify what is accepted as a claim of notability in a certain specific domain — they do not confer an exemption from the claim having to be verifiable as true. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated for a Pulitzer would be a sufficient claim of notability if it were properly verifiable in a reliable source as being true. But for writers vis-à-vis literary awards, musicians vis-à-vis music awards, etc., self-promoters do sometimes falsely claim to have been nominated for major awards that they actually weren't. Since I frequently edit articles on Canadian writers, for example, I often see claims that a writer was "nominated" for the Giller or the GG or the Griffin, when in reality they didn't even make the prize's longlist at all, and the "nomination" in fact consisted solely of their publisher submitting the work for consideration. And we have seen outright hoax articles created about people who were claimed as passing an "automatic notability" criterion (e.g. serving in a national legislature, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Snipplet) but in reality never existed at all.

So whoever told you that "notability is based on claims, not references" was either misinformed or distorting the reality — that's only true insofar as whether an article is eligible for speedy deletion or not. When it comes to being kept at a full AFD, however, the notability does depend on being able to find reliable sources which properly verify the truth of the claim.

So if the claimed Pulitzer nominations here can be verified as true, then it's a valid in — but he doesn't get an article just for claiming Pulitzer nominations, if we can't verify that anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Medical Marijuana - All states

I was in the wiki for all states with LEGAL -MEDICAL marijuana. I live in WA state so I know this is true but don't have reference point. But the wiki was wrong, listing x states being the only ones with dispensaries. I've had my MMJ card for 3 years (I'm dying) and not only are there dispensaries but quite a few do deliveries for people like me. This is not recreational, and for people like me to sick for opiods this is a serious matter. I'd just like someone to look it over. Since I have no clue how to fix and/or where to come up with the references. Thanks, Daisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.155.57 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP might be referring to Medical cannabis in the United States but I can't be sure. And that said, I'm not sure what they're trying to say is wrong with it. Dismas|^(talk) 19:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daisy. It would have been helpful if you had told us clearly which of our five million articles you were referring to; but I think Dismas has probably found the right one. Assuming that article is the one you mean, please post on Talk:Medical cannabis in the United States, specifying exactly what you think should be changed in the article, since at the moment we're rather in the dark. If you can find publihsed references, that's even better, but if you can't it may be that somebody else can. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to quickly make a copy (to word or excel) of the index / titles of all articles?

Good day to all!

For personal use need to make an index of all page names.

I hope that you will help me, and I do not have to manually copy the names of titles of all articles, because it will take 1000+ times of Cntl C - Cntrl V from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/A-Z_index

95.55.134.163 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/; the list of titles is all-titles-in-ns0.gz. As with all Wikipedia database dumps, be aware that these files are huge and will happily cook your computer's processor if you're planning on doing anything fancy with it. ‑ Iridescent 19:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

desmond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.206.82 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised article

Hi there, I recently revised the Unanimous A.I. page to clear up flags. Spoke to someone last week that language was too promotional. Link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_A.I.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonzalez512 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links in article "Ibrahim B. Syed" have problems - one is dead, other "Temporarily Unavailable"

His organization at http://www.irfi.org/about_irfi.htm maybe should have a Wikipedia page. FurnaldHall (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with source.

I have an issue with a certain source, History of the Incas by Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, in that put forth information that is at contradictory to most of the other sources used in articles it's cited in, but also puts forth wild claims that are frankly unlikely at best, and impossible at worst.

A good example of the first is on the Huayna Capac article, where the other sources say that Huayna Capac was botn in 1468 and died in 1533, having reigned from 1493-1527; however, the article also states that Huayna Capac "lived for 80 years and reigned for 60", citing de Gamboa's book as the source.

A more egregious infraction could be found on the Sinchi Roca article (though I removed it several months ago) stating as fact that Sinchi Roca died in 675 A.D., despite having ruled a kingdom that was founded in the 1100 at earliest estimates, and saying that he lived to 127 years old (an astounding feat for someone in such a primitive culture).

The thing is, I am not knowledgeable enough to speak on Incan culture/history, and am not qualified to say that de Gambino's work should just be discarded and scrubbed from what could possibly be dozens of articles. How would I go about getting the eyes of actual experts in the field onto these pages?142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the talk-pages of the various articles, you will see which WikiProjects they form a a part of. You could try posting at the project talk-pages. (It might be an idea to look at them first to see how 'active' the pages are). Eagleash (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decent idea, because none of the pages I've really looked at so far are particularly active. If you or anyone else have/has any other ideas though, I'd appreciate hearing them.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking for work i am sanjeev puktar

hello my name is sanjeev puktar i am looking for work because i need to find job. i can edit and create document for wikipedia foundation and i can create article for decent wage. will employ me?

- how much for each article? - how much for each edit?

when will i get paid? how to get paid? cash.. cheque is good. --Sajeevpuktar1988 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Sajeevpuktar1988 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajeevpuktar1988: We are all volunteers here. Nobody gets paid. We do this for free. If you wish to join us, that would be great. Please see WP:WELCOME and WP:TUTORIAL for more information. --Majora (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

okay i work for free but then job. were to enter dvbit card details for future payment? i will start article now. --Sajeevpuktar1988 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can i have flight to usa for editing wikipedia money and boardroom meeting. --Sajeevpuktar1988 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajeevpuktar1988: No. You do not seem to understand. You will not get paid to edit Wikipedia. You will never get paid to edit Wikipedia. There is no place to enter debit card information and there will be no future payments. There is no job. There will never be a job. Wikipedia is edited and maintained by volunteers. --Majora (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is bimbo wales a volunteer or does he get paid. --Sajeevpuktar1988 (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he is a volunteer. He makes his money from related projects but that doesn't include editing Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 23:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to work for Wikipedia, then your best bet would be to look here: [1] but you will never be paid just for editing Wikipedia.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael of Kent

I have noticed that many of the older refs. on this page (numbers 10, 18, 19, 20 and 21) are incorrectly done. are you able to check and then fix? thanks in advance. Srbernadette (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 requires log-in/subscription; 18 is not showing a ref error, fixed 19 & 20; 21 takes you to a home page not the source itself. Eagleash (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]